Also been meaning to give a shout out to Hargreaves Lansdowne, since I've been moaning about them a lot on here. I've got a SIPP with them but I'm UK tax-non resident. Once I'd clarified what options I actually have for accessing the funds, (speaking to both Pension Wise and Which mag.) I gave them a call and they were very helpful, even suggesting a way to start the process with a minimal withdrawal with the aim of obliging HMRC to send H-L the non-resident certificate so that H-L can send me later withdrawals gross. They've also quietly beefed up their portfolio analysis tool although they keep it hidden away - they say they are planning to improve it further. They are quite happy that I'm a non -resident so long as I have a UK bank account, and here too I've got lucky as it turns out that HSBC, alone among the big banks, are perfectly OK with me keeping my current account while moving to a foreign address. For ages I had really thought I'd need to shift everything to non-UK platforms and banks, and had opened an account and experienced the full UX horror of Interactive Brokers. Well H-L are a lot more expensive but when it comes to platform functionality for punters like me who are mainly in funds, I've decided its still good value and I am not going anywhere. Hats off to them and to HSBC from a grateful traitor.😉
It's odd that HSBC stand alone amongst UK banks when it comes to people like yourself living abroad. My friends who live in Cyprus now suddenly had to close all their Barclays accounts after they had been there for about three years and struggled to find another UK bank with whom they could bank. Luckily an advisor in Cyprus suggested they open an account with HSBC in Jersey and apparently they couldn't have been happier with that suggestion. If HSBC UK catch up with the other banks then a Jersey account may be an option for people.
There’s a difference between your friends and my case. HSBC are saying that if you already have a UK current account and then move abroad they are OK with that because they already know you. Your friends in Cyprus cant open a UK current account. The question is why Barclays behaved like such ****s. I have read a lot of criticism of them. The overall issue is about cross-border regulations and “know your customer” stuff. I expect @TelMc32 will understand it all a lot more precisely than me.
Anyway it looks like HSBC have made a strategic decision to be more international in outlook. The Global Money account is good, and they introduced it in Oz a few years before they brought it over to the UK. Good on them.
HSBC do an expat account, although believe you have to have £75k with them within 3 months.
And of course it comes with fees (as I am sure will the Jersey account). This is what you get offered, if you browse the website; of course.. You have to dig further to find out that if you are already a current account holder, you can keep it if you go abroad and keep the account active. My main Czech bank (Raifeissen) has had the multi-currency account option for years (only because the bought a clever Czech start-up) . So now I convert HSBC £s to euros at almost mid-market rate with no fees, or to Czech crowns as needed. And both have debit cards, so I can roam freely around the eurozone or Switzerland (or wherever) without being whacked for charges or dodgy rates every time I pay for something. Who needs dodgy Revolut?
If I give the impression of being ecstatic about this, it's because I am. I've dreamed about this kind of basic banking functionality across borders for years, and Brexit seemed to take it away forever. I think it's important to call out big companies for bad service. But the opposite applies too. Somebody at HSBC realised there's a market, showed some backbone, and played to their strengths.
HSBC do an expat account, although believe you have to have £75k with them within 3 months.
And of course it comes with fees (as I am sure will the Jersey account). This is what you get offered, if you browse the website; of course.. You have to dig further to find out that if you are already a current account holder, you can keep it if you go abroad and keep the account active. My main Czech bank (Raifeissen) has had the multi-currency account option for years (only because the bought a clever Czech start-up) . So now I convert HSBC £s to euros at almost mid-market rate with no fees, or to Czech crowns as needed. And both have debit cards, so I can roam freely around the eurozone or Switzerland (or wherever) without being whacked for charges or dodgy rates every time I pay for something. Who needs dodgy Revolut?
If I give the impression of being ecstatic about this, it's because I am. I've dreamed about this kind of basic banking functionality across borders for years, and Brexit seemed to take it away forever. I think it's important to call out big companies for bad service. But the opposite applies too. Somebody at HSBC realised there's a market, showed some backbone, and played to their strengths.
I've had HSBC's global money account since they offered a year or so ago, handy when abroad and even more so if I get my winters in the sun (Cyprus) on retirement. They've always had something similar if not quite as easy to use. My aunt had a place in Spain, banked (and worked) at HSBC and had a Spanish account with them, that must have been early/mid 90's. They've for a long while allowed UK ex pats to have accounts.
Yes if you have a Premier account in the UK it's fine, otherwise it's £75k in the expat account by 3 months, that or a salary of £120k paid in to the expat account.
Looking at rebalancing my stocks and shares isa and it's suggesting to buy more S&P 500 and other American based shares. Am i being thick, but isn't this a bad idea?!
Looking at rebalancing my stocks and shares isa and it's suggesting to buy more S&P 500 and other American based shares. Am i being thick, but isn't this a bad idea?!
Who's suggesting it & what is your current exposure to the US ?
Looking at rebalancing my stocks and shares isa and it's suggesting to buy more S&P 500 and other American based shares. Am i being thick, but isn't this a bad idea?!
Who's suggesting it & what is your current exposure to the US ?
The app (Trading 212) is suggesting increasing from 35.96% to 36.7%.
Looking at rebalancing my stocks and shares isa and it's suggesting to buy more S&P 500 and other American based shares. Am i being thick, but isn't this a bad idea?!
Who's suggesting it & what is your current exposure to the US ?
The app (Trading 212) is suggesting increasing from 35.96% to 36.7%.
Is that not your current portfolio weighting vs "target" portfolio weighting that you have set or the machine has set?
As an example if I have 5 different funds at 20% each and one goes up by 10% since I bought and the others stay the same, that one fund that rose will now be above the 20% allocation because it has grown, the others would be under 20%.
HSBC do an expat account, although believe you have to have £75k with them within 3 months.
And of course it comes with fees (as I am sure will the Jersey account). This is what you get offered, if you browse the website; of course.. You have to dig further to find out that if you are already a current account holder, you can keep it if you go abroad and keep the account active. My main Czech bank (Raifeissen) has had the multi-currency account option for years (only because the bought a clever Czech start-up) . So now I convert HSBC £s to euros at almost mid-market rate with no fees, or to Czech crowns as needed. And both have debit cards, so I can roam freely around the eurozone or Switzerland (or wherever) without being whacked for charges or dodgy rates every time I pay for something. Who needs dodgy Revolut?
If I give the impression of being ecstatic about this, it's because I am. I've dreamed about this kind of basic banking functionality across borders for years, and Brexit seemed to take it away forever. I think it's important to call out big companies for bad service. But the opposite applies too. Somebody at HSBC realised there's a market, showed some backbone, and played to their strengths.
I've had HSBC's global money account since they offered a year or so ago, handy when abroad and even more so if I get my winters in the sun (Cyprus) on retirement. They've always had something similar if not quite as easy to use. My aunt had a place in Spain, banked (and worked) at HSBC and had a Spanish account with them, that must have been early/mid 90's. They've for a long while allowed UK ex pats to have accounts.
Yes if you have a Premier account in the UK it's fine, otherwise it's £75k in the expat account by 3 months, that or a salary of £120k paid in to the expat account.
Not just Premier, @Rob7Lee . Bog standard Advance will do it. I can't remember the exact conditions for Advance but I pay in not much more than my UK pension each month and incur no fees. As for extras, I don't think I have travel insurance with it, but that's moot for those moving abroad. Most insurance policies insist your journey starts and ends in the UK.
Looking at rebalancing my stocks and shares isa and it's suggesting to buy more S&P 500 and other American based shares. Am i being thick, but isn't this a bad idea?!
Who's suggesting it & what is your current exposure to the US ?
The app (Trading 212) is suggesting increasing from 35.96% to 36.7%.
Increasing your exposure to US equities by 0.74% will not make a jot of difference.
However, if it's a balanced portfolio with Bonds & Property as well as equities then I'd say you are already overweight in US equities.
You're correct. If i push the rebalance button it will align them to the target by buying an amount to hit those targets and selling shares that aren't shown.
My query is why would i want to increase my exposure to America when things are as they are there? Or to put it another way, would pushing the rebalance button be a bad move?
Looking at rebalancing my stocks and shares isa and it's suggesting to buy more S&P 500 and other American based shares. Am i being thick, but isn't this a bad idea?!
Who's suggesting it & what is your current exposure to the US ?
The app (Trading 212) is suggesting increasing from 35.96% to 36.7%.
Is that not your current portfolio weighting vs "target" portfolio weighting that you have set or the machine has set?
As an example if I have 5 different funds at 20% each and one goes up by 10% since I bought and the others stay the same, that one fund that rose will now be above the 20% allocation because it has grown, the others would be under 20%.
Does that make sense?
That's certainly how I read it.
@Friend Or Defoe the following is just my opinion, and plenty will disagree (debate welcome and helpful ) but I have a wodge of cash waiting to be fed back into the market as part of my portfolio re-balancing (see above) and after one initial tranche I have decided to stop feeding in any more to American funds, while we all wait to see how this pans out. Serious commentators (such as the FT Unhedged guys) see rational reasons why US funds are currently down, and European funds solidly up. Basically, Trumps tariff policies carry risk for traditional US companies, and investors are questioning the returns on the huge gambles on AI by companies that already have eye-watering ratings. Meanwhile Europe is getting its shit together on defence, especially Germany, which has some big, big defence sector companies. Investment in defence helps GDP, which has been struggling in Germany, and when Germany does well, neighbours like my second country do well too. Nothing is clear yet, and other opinions and analyses are most definitely available. The other thing I'd point out if you are feeling cautious is that money market/cash funds are still delivering 5% pa. I was expecting them to dip this year, but there is a bet now that US inflation may rise because of tariffs, which means the Fed can't cut. Money market funds are the cheapest and safest funds you can buy. You can always switch out of them when trends become clearer. But I suspect that I am twice your age, bear that in mind.
Finally I'd suggest you have a good long look at what's in your funds. You may find that they generally all hold the same companies, the big tech 7. And take a look at the performance of your ESG fund. It may well be in the doghouse. I ditched all mine in that sector, even though I was sad to do so.
You're correct. If i push the rebalance button it will align them to the target by buying an amount to hit those targets and selling shares that aren't shown.
My query is why would i want to increase my exposure to America when things are as they are there? Or to put it another way, would pushing the rebalance button be a bad move?
But you've not answered the important questions....what's your attitude to risk and what is this "model portfolio" trying to achieve ?
The US accounts for approx 65% of the world's stockmarket, so if you have an all share portfolio you are seriously underweight.
If you are a medium risk investor who's portfolio also contains Bonds, Property and Alternative investments then you are seriously overweight in US equities.
" I have 3 oranges and the computer says I should have 4......should I buy an apple instead?".
You're correct. If i push the rebalance button it will align them to the target by buying an amount to hit those targets and selling shares that aren't shown.
My query is why would i want to increase my exposure to America when things are as they are there? Or to put it another way, would pushing the rebalance button be a bad move?
But you've not answered the important questions....what's your attitude to risk and what is this "model portfolio" trying to achieve ?
The US accounts for approx 65% of the world's stockmarket, so if you have an all share portfolio you are seriously underweight.
If you are a medium risk investor who's portfolio also contains Bonds, Property and Alternative investments then you are seriously overweight in US equities.
" I have 3 oranges and the computer says I should have 4......should I buy an apple instead?".
But isn't one of the issues that if you hold a "global" tracker it is in fact almost as invested in Nvidia, Meta, Amazon and Swasticar as a US fund?
Surely if your US holdings decrease while others stay still then the model will tell you to buy more US, and you'd always be selling gainers to buy losers. That's a bit of a simplification but it seems from the outside that that's how the model works...
Surely if your US holdings decrease while others stay still then the model will tell you to buy more US, and you'd always be selling gainers to buy losers. That's a bit of a simplification but it seems from the outside that that's how the model works...
The model is usually based on a premise that you have a certain % in equities (US, UK, Europe, Asia and the Far East) and a certain % in bonds. The % splits in each depends on your risk strategy. As you say, if a certain sector increases or decrease then it needs to be rebalanced to get it back to the "model" you signed up for. If you are in a Managed Portfolio Service then this is done automatically.... maybe monthly, maybe quarterly or maybe annually.
You're correct. If i push the rebalance button it will align them to the target by buying an amount to hit those targets and selling shares that aren't shown.
My query is why would i want to increase my exposure to America when things are as they are there? Or to put it another way, would pushing the rebalance button be a bad move?
But you've not answered the important questions....what's your attitude to risk and what is this "model portfolio" trying to achieve ?
The US accounts for approx 65% of the world's stockmarket, so if you have an all share portfolio you are seriously underweight.
If you are a medium risk investor who's portfolio also contains Bonds, Property and Alternative investments then you are seriously overweight in US equities.
" I have 3 oranges and the computer says I should have 4......should I buy an apple instead?".
Apologies i was replying to Huskaris, i should have used the quote button.
It's 92% equity with rest split between bond and commodities.
This week my attitude to risk has reduced considerably!
Surely if your US holdings decrease while others stay still then the model will tell you to buy more US, and you'd always be selling gainers to buy losers. That's a bit of a simplification but it seems from the outside that that's how the model works...
You're correct. If i push the rebalance button it will align them to the target by buying an amount to hit those targets and selling shares that aren't shown.
My query is why would i want to increase my exposure to America when things are as they are there? Or to put it another way, would pushing the rebalance button be a bad move?
But you've not answered the important questions....what's your attitude to risk and what is this "model portfolio" trying to achieve ?
The US accounts for approx 65% of the world's stockmarket, so if you have an all share portfolio you are seriously underweight.
If you are a medium risk investor who's portfolio also contains Bonds, Property and Alternative investments then you are seriously overweight in US equities.
" I have 3 oranges and the computer says I should have 4......should I buy an apple instead?".
But isn't one of the issues that if you hold a "global" tracker it is in fact almost as invested in Nvidia, Meta, Amazon and Swasticar as a US fund?
To a certain degree, but a US fund is invested 100% in the US (give or take) but a worldwide tracker should track the MSCI index, of which the US makes up around 65%.
The main difference is a tracker or index fund should be mirroring that Index. No ifs no buts. A fund managed by a fund manager will have a mandate of what they are trying to achieve & the manager can follow his convictions as to where he invests. He may not fancy holding Nvidia or Apple. He my fancy holding Zynex shares instead 😀. That's up to him & why I always advise holding 2 or 3 different funds of the same sector in a portfolio so that you get a mix of ideas rather than all your funds investing in the same shares.
Surely if your US holdings decrease while others stay still then the model will tell you to buy more US, and you'd always be selling gainers to buy losers. That's a bit of a simplification but it seems from the outside that that's how the model works...
But this weeks losers could be next weeks winners.
You're correct. If i push the rebalance button it will align them to the target by buying an amount to hit those targets and selling shares that aren't shown.
My query is why would i want to increase my exposure to America when things are as they are there? Or to put it another way, would pushing the rebalance button be a bad move?
But you've not answered the important questions....what's your attitude to risk and what is this "model portfolio" trying to achieve ?
The US accounts for approx 65% of the world's stockmarket, so if you have an all share portfolio you are seriously underweight.
If you are a medium risk investor who's portfolio also contains Bonds, Property and Alternative investments then you are seriously overweight in US equities.
" I have 3 oranges and the computer says I should have 4......should I buy an apple instead?".
Apologies i was replying to Huskaris, i should have used the quote button.
It's 92% equity with rest split between bond and commodities.
This week my attitude to risk has reduced considerably!
That would make you a high risk investor and as such you are underweight in the US.
You're correct. If i push the rebalance button it will align them to the target by buying an amount to hit those targets and selling shares that aren't shown.
My query is why would i want to increase my exposure to America when things are as they are there? Or to put it another way, would pushing the rebalance button be a bad move?
But you've not answered the important questions....what's your attitude to risk and what is this "model portfolio" trying to achieve ?
The US accounts for approx 65% of the world's stockmarket, so if you have an all share portfolio you are seriously underweight.
If you are a medium risk investor who's portfolio also contains Bonds, Property and Alternative investments then you are seriously overweight in US equities.
" I have 3 oranges and the computer says I should have 4......should I buy an apple instead?".
Apologies i was replying to Huskaris, i should have used the quote button.
It's 92% equity with rest split between bond and commodities.
This week my attitude to risk has reduced considerably!
That would make you a high risk investor and as such you are underweight in the US.
There are other shares not shown so i guess it's probably about right.
I'm thinking the US at present is too risky for me!
Surely if your US holdings decrease while others stay still then the model will tell you to buy more US, and you'd always be selling gainers to buy losers. That's a bit of a simplification but it seems from the outside that that's how the model works...
That's my uneducated take as well.
Yeah that's the point. It's not suggesting that you do that, it's saying the portfolio that you have created is aiming for it.
If you change your portfolio, it will change those numbers. Your original post looked like it was trying to advise you to increase the US holding rather than just illustrating the rules of your portfolio.
Looking at rebalancing my stocks and shares isa and it's suggesting to buy more S&P 500 and other American based shares. Am i being thick, but isn't this a bad idea?!
Who's suggesting it & what is your current exposure to the US ?
The app (Trading 212) is suggesting increasing from 35.96% to 36.7%.
Is that not your current portfolio weighting vs "target" portfolio weighting that you have set or the machine has set?
As an example if I have 5 different funds at 20% each and one goes up by 10% since I bought and the others stay the same, that one fund that rose will now be above the 20% allocation because it has grown, the others would be under 20%.
Does that make sense?
That's certainly how I read it.
@Friend Or Defoe the following is just my opinion, and plenty will disagree (debate welcome and helpful ) but I have a wodge of cash waiting to be fed back into the market as part of my portfolio re-balancing (see above) and after one initial tranche I have decided to stop feeding in any more to American funds, while we all wait to see how this pans out. Serious commentators (such as the FT Unhedged guys) see rational reasons why US funds are currently down, and European funds solidly up. Basically, Trumps tariff policies carry risk for traditional US companies, and investors are questioning the returns on the huge gambles on AI by companies that already have eye-watering ratings. Meanwhile Europe is getting its shit together on defence, especially Germany, which has some big, big defence sector companies. Investment in defence helps GDP, which has been struggling in Germany, and when Germany does well, neighbours like my second country do well too. Nothing is clear yet, and other opinions and analyses are most definitely available. The other thing I'd point out if you are feeling cautious is that money market/cash funds are still delivering 5% pa. I was expecting them to dip this year, but there is a bet now that US inflation may rise because of tariffs, which means the Fed can't cut. Money market funds are the cheapest and safest funds you can buy. You can always switch out of them when trends become clearer. But I suspect that I am twice your age, bear that in mind.
Finally I'd suggest you have a good long look at what's in your funds. You may find that they generally all hold the same companies, the big tech 7. And take a look at the performance of your ESG fund. It may well be in the doghouse. I ditched all mine in that sector, even though I was sad to do so.
Comments
If I give the impression of being ecstatic about this, it's because I am. I've dreamed about this kind of basic banking functionality across borders for years, and Brexit seemed to take it away forever. I think it's important to call out big companies for bad service. But the opposite applies too. Somebody at HSBC realised there's a market, showed some backbone, and played to their strengths.
Yes if you have a Premier account in the UK it's fine, otherwise it's £75k in the expat account by 3 months, that or a salary of £120k paid in to the expat account.
Fuming at winning £140? 🤣
As an example if I have 5 different funds at 20% each and one goes up by 10% since I bought and the others stay the same, that one fund that rose will now be above the 20% allocation because it has grown, the others would be under 20%.
Does that make sense?
However, if it's a balanced portfolio with Bonds & Property as well as equities then I'd say you are already overweight in US equities.
My query is why would i want to increase my exposure to America when things are as they are there? Or to put it another way, would pushing the rebalance button be a bad move?
That's certainly how I read it.
@Friend Or Defoe the following is just my opinion, and plenty will disagree (debate welcome and helpful ) but I have a wodge of cash waiting to be fed back into the market as part of my portfolio re-balancing (see above) and after one initial tranche I have decided to stop feeding in any more to American funds, while we all wait to see how this pans out. Serious commentators (such as the FT Unhedged guys) see rational reasons why US funds are currently down, and European funds solidly up. Basically, Trumps tariff policies carry risk for traditional US companies, and investors are questioning the returns on the huge gambles on AI by companies that already have eye-watering ratings. Meanwhile Europe is getting its shit together on defence, especially Germany, which has some big, big defence sector companies. Investment in defence helps GDP, which has been struggling in Germany, and when Germany does well, neighbours like my second country do well too. Nothing is clear yet, and other opinions and analyses are most definitely available. The other thing I'd point out if you are feeling cautious is that money market/cash funds are still delivering 5% pa. I was expecting them to dip this year, but there is a bet now that US inflation may rise because of tariffs, which means the Fed can't cut. Money market funds are the cheapest and safest funds you can buy. You can always switch out of them when trends become clearer. But I suspect that I am twice your age, bear that in mind.
Finally I'd suggest you have a good long look at what's in your funds. You may find that they generally all hold the same companies, the big tech 7. And take a look at the performance of your ESG fund. It may well be in the doghouse. I ditched all mine in that sector, even though I was sad to do so.
The US accounts for approx 65% of the world's stockmarket, so if you have an all share portfolio you are seriously underweight.
If you are a medium risk investor who's portfolio also contains Bonds, Property and Alternative investments then you are seriously overweight in US equities.
" I have 3 oranges and the computer says I should have 4......should I buy an apple instead?".
It's 92% equity with rest split between bond and commodities.
This week my attitude to risk has reduced considerably!
The main difference is a tracker or index fund should be mirroring that Index. No ifs no buts. A fund managed by a fund manager will have a mandate of what they are trying to achieve & the manager can follow his convictions as to where he invests. He may not fancy holding Nvidia or Apple. He my fancy holding Zynex shares instead 😀. That's up to him & why I always advise holding 2 or 3 different funds of the same sector in a portfolio so that you get a mix of ideas rather than all your funds investing in the same shares.
I'm thinking the US at present is too risky for me!
If you change your portfolio, it will change those numbers. Your original post looked like it was trying to advise you to increase the US holding rather than just illustrating the rules of your portfolio.